DAMODARAN Vs. FOOD INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the accused against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot, in C. A. 51 of 1973 on his file, confirming the conviction, but modifying the sentence, passed, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Sub-divi-sional Magistrate, Cheyyar, in C. C. 138 of 1973 on his file.

(2.) THE petitioner-accused on a complaint filed by the Food Inspector of Tiruvattipuram town Panchayat under Sections 7 and 16 (1) (a) (i) read with Section 2 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and rule 44 (a) of the rules framed thereunder, with the allegation that on 30-12-71 at 3-15 p. m. he was found in possession of five litres of gingili oil for sale and sold 300 millilitre for the purpose of analysis and that on analysis, it was found that the sample contained 12 per cent of groundnut oil and hence adulterated, was found guilty under the said charge, convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, after confirming the conviction, modified the sentence by reducing it to the period already undergone and maintaining the sentence of fine,

(3.) THE only point that has been urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the samples were not taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Rule 22 states that in the case of gingili oil (edible oil) the approximate quantity of sample to be taken for purposes of analysis is 375 grams which in turn has to be divided into three equal parts and one such part has to be sent for analysis; in other words, 125 grams has to be sent to the analyst.